The ATP’s regular season comes to a close next week in Paris and assembling for the finale are nine of the Top 10 players, missing only Rafael Nadal. But the tournament could be without defending champion Roger Federer who has hinted that he may also withdraw to rest up for the year-end London Finals next month.

If Federer does play he’ll be the top seed in a tough section that will see him potentially face tricky Frenchman Gilles Simon (or Marcos Baghdatis) in his opener, then Kei Nishikori followed by either Tomas Berdych and Richard Gasquet who’ll need to do well In Paris to qualify for London.

Federer is seeded to meet Andy Murray in the semifinals. The Scot withdrew from Basel but returns for Paris and he’s been rewarded with an excellent draw. Murray could meet Marin Cilic in his third round then he’s seeded to face Janko Tipsarevic in the quarterfinals. I think Murray should get through if he’s feeling on par. And he should be because it’s a great opportunity for him to gain points if he has hopes to make a push for No. 1 next year.

In the bottom half, French favorite and 2010 winner JW Tsonga and David Ferrer are the two studs in the third quarter. Tsonga, who just hired ex-Monfils/Hewitt coach Roger Rasheed, could face countryman Julien Benneteau in his opener, then Nicolas Almagro before Ferrer. Tsonga gets the edge but Ferrer won’t be easy.

Second seed and former champion Novak Djokovic is my pick for the tournament and he’s embedded in a hellacious section in the bottom of the draw where the Serb is joined by Juan Martin Del Potro, John Isner and Milos Raonic. Novak will open with the Sam Querrey/Fernando Verdasco winner before Raonic and then either Del Potro or Isner. Not easy, especially indoors, but I think he does it.

Given the uncertainty with Federer, I think we are looking at a Djokovic-Berdych final. And since it is the final event of the season for about 80% players in the draw, it’s always interesting to see how much fight is left in some of the lower ranked guys when they get behind. And that could be true of guys like Federer and Murray and even to an extent Djokovic who all may have little to play for in terms of the 2012 season only, at Paris. Though Novak would be advised to add some cushion to his lead at No. 1 and keep pace with Federer’s results in the tournament heading into London where the Swiss does so well.

As for the ATP London race, two spots remain after Nadal withdrew. Tsonga has big edge on the contenders so he’ll get in leaving one spot. Tipsarevic is next and really unless someone like Gasquet, Monaco, Almagro or Raonic reach the semifinals he’ll be in as well.

126 Comments for Will Federer Play Paris? For Now He’s In The Draw Along With Djokovic And Murray

jane Says:

“Tsonga, who just hired ex-Monfils/Hewitt coach Roger Rasheed”

Oh, that’s probably a good move. He’s been doing alright without a coach for about a year now, but it seems that to take it to the next level, someone in his corner helping him along would be advisable.

“and he’s embedded in a hellacious section in the bottom of the draw ”

Hellacious! Ha! I like it Sean. Er, I mean I don’t like it. Hmm, I like the word, but don’t like that Nole’s embedded in it, if you get my drift. Hope he can get outta hellacious section. He’ll probably start play on Hallowe’en too! Boo!

Fed will decide what’s best for himself. His Davis Cup participation and what it did to him in Shanghai would probably weigh a bit in his decision.

I hope he chooses to play, though. It’d be a bummer for the Paris crowd if he didn’t. If he did play, I am sure he’ll go deep and save a few ranking points at the very least, instead of losing a whopping 1000 points. With him and Djoker so close in points, those precious few ranking points could spell the difference between landing a smoothie or a toughie draw in big tournaments next year.

A good understanding of how the ranking systems function, is in my view indispensable to correctly estimate Federer’s chances of still finishing 2012 as the YE no1. Such is only possible if one examines both the rules and the manner in which they are applied.
For instance, the number of tournament results taken into account – for say the 30 highest ranked players – is de facto restricted to 16 tournament results for determining the WTA singles ranking and to 18 tournament results for the ATP singles rankings and YED rankings .
As for the ATP singles rankings and Race to London rankings, these 18 tournament results can be divided into 3 groups: the 4 Slam results, the 8 or 9 Masters Tournaments results and the 5 or 6 best results in the remaining tournaments (eventually with Davis Cup results being part of these 5 or 6 remaining best results). The results of the 4 slams and the 8 mandatory Masters count automatically as 12 tournament results, whether a player really participated or not doesn’t matter. When a player participates in the Monte Carlo Masters (like Ferrer) only the 5 best result of his remaining results are taken into account for his ranking. Also, when a player is committed to play in an ATP 500 but subsequently decides not to play the tournament, it also counts as a tournament played, and his result for this tournament wil be 0. As a result of these rules, the ranking of Roger Federer is determined by his 4 slam and 8 Master tournament results, by his 5 best ATP 500 results and by 0 for the Tokyo tournament; in the same way Janko Tipsarovic ranking points are determined by 4 slam and 8 Master results and his best 6 remaining results (among which 145 points for Davis Cup wins).

This is also the reason why the Race to London ranking points must be looked at with caution.
The Race to London ranking points may in particular include points that can still drop by applying this limitation-rule to 18 tournament results. Take for example Federer and Tipsarevic YED ranking points.
Federer’s Race to London ranking points amounts currently to 9,255 points. In the ATP Singles ranking his ranking points amount however to 12,165 points , because these ranking points still include his Basel, Paris and WTF points from last year. The difference between the two totals is however not 3000 points as one could expect, but only 2910 points, because his Doha points of this year (90 points ) have not been counted because of the 18-tournament-results rule. These points are still counted in the Race to London rankings because his Basel results have not yet been included in this race. Once they will be counted, his Doha ranking points will also drop in the Race to London ranking points.
The same will happen with Janko Tipsarovic.
Tipsarovic’s Race to London ranking points amounts currently to 2,810 points. In the ATP Singles ranking, his points amount however to 3,160 points , because his ATP singles ranking points still include his ST.Peterburg, Paris and WTF points from last year. The difference between the two totals is however not 440 points ( 150 + 90 + 200) as one could expect, but only 350 points, because one of his non-countable tournaments in the ATP singles ranking is still taken into account in the Race to London rankings. Tipsarovic’s 150 points of ST.Petursburg will drop the 29.10.2012 and be replaced by 90 points of a today still not-countable tournament results, which implies that his Race to London Ranking Points will climb with 90 points without actually playing at the moment.
Bottomline of all this: the current points gap between Djokovic and Federer in the Race to London, is slightly misleading.
After Del Potro’s victory in Basel, the gap between Djokovic’s and Roger Federer’s “Race to London points“ will only decrease with 210 points, because of the Doha points falling off, which brings the gap, currently being at 2,155 points (11,410 – 9,255 ) down to 1.945 points (11,410 – 9,465 points).
If Djokovic reaches the R16 in the Paris Master next week, he gains another 90 points, which would give him an unbridgeable lead of 2035 points in the Race to London and make him the YE no 1.

wilfred “For instance, the number of tournament results taken into account – for say the 30 highest ranked players – is de facto restricted… to 18 tournament results for the ATP singles rankings and YED rankings .”

So are you saying because Fed can’t count both Doha and Basel points that therefore…”If Djokovic reaches the R16 in the Paris Master next week, he gains another 90 points, which would… make him the YE no 1″ ? Hopefully I’ve followed you correctly. In other words, Fed’s met his 18 tournament limit? Sorry if I am misunderstanding.

As far as I can tell Nole’s played only 15 events so far this year. What happens when a player plays less than the limit? They get only their points from those events counted I presume, nothing from previous season?

How do you know dari? That’s surprising. But I guess Fed would rather push for another WTF title instead of #1.

If it’s true, that’s nice for Nole. :)

Kinda disappointing for Paris though. Would’ve like to see Fed and Muzz get to the semis again and see what happens.

Not sure what to expect from Andy; he probably wouldn’t mind adding a Masters to his cabinet this year, but I should think he’d prioritize a win at WTF even more, especially as he couldn’t play there last year, AND he’s done so well at home.

@ Jane
It works indeed as a limit in my opinion.
The ranking of a player with direct access to the MAsters, the ATP 500 and ATP 250 (32 best players) is de facto limited to 18 tournament results. For lower ranked players, like my fellow country man David Goffin, this limitation is not (yet) applied though.
Results prior to the current year are of course not taken into account in the Race to London rankings.

This means that #2 is getting very close for Andy: Fed is at 9465 and Andy is at 7510.

That’s a difference of 1955, but when we subtract Fed’s 1000 points from Paris last year, as well as Andy’s 180 points points from Paris last year, that cuts the point’s difference to 1135 points.

Murray has nothing to defend at WTF (he played only one match, which he lost, and then he pulled out); Fed has 1500 points to defend.

Depending on what happens at WTF and pre-AO next year, there’s a slight chance that Andy could be seeded #2 at the AO, although he has 250 to defend at Brisbane and Fed has only 90 to defend at Doha. So it’s likely Fed will still have #2 for the AO. But it’s getting very close.

Who cares about whether Federer is no. 1 or not? Seriously. He has been number 1 for 302 weeks. Who on earth is going to come close to that.

And Mike, you seriously think he isn’t playing well? Have you watched any of his matches this year? I don’t understand when people say things like this, that make no sense. Back it up with something at least.

The person who deserves to be number 1, is novak right now. The points account for that, but so proud to be a federer fan. He has been awesome for his fans this year. Truly great.

I can see longest serving and suffering #3 and #4 in the world fighting for #1 next year, rightfuly so and I will tell you why.
Federer is defending YEC, SF at AO, Rotterdam, Dubai and IW,
Andy is defending Bugger all until Wimbledon. If he makes good run in Paris and YEC a see him as very very close to #1 by the time Wimbledon comes. Of course I hope my man can hold to #1, but it will be tight race next year, I believe.
I didn’t forget Nadal, how can domebody forget Rafa, but he defends tons of point until Wimbledon and I have yet to see him playing, something tells me he will start with Abu Dhabi.
So yes there is majot shift in a fight for #1.
Good for tennis:)

Wog Boy, I agree: it will be tight. Everything Rafa gets from Wimbledon onward is gravy, and it’s true that Andy doesn’t have too many points to defend early next year: title in Brisbane, finals in Dubai and Miami, SF in AO. I can’t remember but not much on clay either as he had back issues. Definitely Nole, Rafa and Fed will have more to back up. Post Wimbledon is where Rafa can make his move. It’ll be very interesting indeed.

I think Fed had the toughest path to the finals at Paris. I’m glad he pulled out because he would have been burned out for the WTF, where a win there would set another record for Fed . It’s best to let Murray, if he gets past T-Berd, and Djokovic slug it out in the finals, which would leave them ragged for WTF.

I can see why T-Berd was chosen instead of Murray. This is an indoor tournament, and no wind to disturb Tomaz, who might be looking to get some revenge for the USO SF loss.

If Nos. 3 and 4 had to suffer, it just goes to show how good Nos. 1 and 2 have been.

I guess now that Fed is showing his decline more and more and Rafa is sidelined more and more by injuries, then the long-suffering guys will no longer be suffering. However, can we assume that tennis is moving into a weak era?

I read the comments hastily, so I may have missed some interesting posts.

First, about Paris. When I saw the draw I was certain Fed will not play. It was probably to soon, by the organisers took no chances.

About the race for number 1 next year. You never know. I am absolutely certain that all the top four will work like crazy before the AO. Djokovic will improve his serve, Fed too, Rafa – I think he reserves us some surprises. For Murray, I believe he has to change his attitude on the court. He has so much power — he should try to use it on regular bases.

After that, it is all a question of draw, of biorhythm, of luck. They are all there, capable to win on any given day. I just hope Nole will be the one with the trophies in the end.

Although Fed is declining, he still is right at the top as he won a slam this year, so he cannot be discounted; my guess is that Rafa will be on point next year, too; then we have Nole and Murray who are also in great form, possibly set to take#1 and 2; plus now we seem to have Delpo stepping up; not to mention players like Berdych and Tsonga, whom we always knew had great potential, and who are playing well; and Ferrer been more consistent this year than he’s been in a number of years. And that’s just the top 8!

We still have a number of other strong players like Tipsy, Gasquet (who’s now top ten in the race), Raonic, Isner, Dolgo, Nico, Monaco, Nishikori, Cilic, and Haas. All these players have had good runs of late, which bodes well for next year. I think there are some promising youngsters, too, in Goffin, Paire, Klizan, Bellucci, Dimitrov and Tomic.

Alok,
It also shows how good #3&#4 were to hung with GOAT and one of best player ever and wait for there chance, don’t forget they both have double digit wins against GOAT and one has positive score which is likely to remain and probably increase the other one might end up with positive score but I don’t think so, depends how long GOAT is going to stay on tour and how often they will have a chance to meet, of course I am talking, Andy and Nole or NolAndy as some good posters like to call them.
Why would we think about week era with Rafa, Nole, Andy at their best years and Delpo getting very close to his best which is scary best, Raonic getting there hopefully, Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori etc. On the oposite, it is great era to get ready for. Put your seatbelts on :)

I forgot to mention other candidates to the top position, because I don’t really see somebody new emerging. The top simply looks to… dense.

The usual suspects are here, but it is very difficult to see them winning against three of the top four. Berdych was the closest to do that feat, but he failed, eventually. Let’s also mention that Federer and Djokovic played under their actual level. An exception could be JMDP, but he will not only have to be at his top, but to improve his game.

No, I think the surprise will be the changes in the style of play of the top four, and the beginning of a new era in tennis: more aggression, more volleying, more flat hitting.

Hey Wog Boy, like I said at 5:44 pm, it will be a weak era because Fed is declining and Rafa’s knees are questionable. If Fed and Rafa cannot beat Djokovic and Murray on a consistent basis, then it will only be two players at the top with very little competition to stop them. To me that’s somewhat of a weak era. I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.

@volley, then that will be 2011?

I’m hoping JMDP will step it up and make the field more competitive. Tsonga and T-Berd are spoilers, because they are very inconsistent. also, they are getting up there in years.

I have always felt that Nadal has brought a revolution (although it is always the same, just like the perennial alternation of the aesthetics of poiesis and mimesis in poetry) in the middle on the last decade: after years of dominance of attacking tennis (FO excepted) that Roger Federer embodied in its ultimate form, Rafa showed that you can rely not on tennis virtuosity, but on will, strength, speed, focus and on defence. The duels of Rafa vs Fed always reminded me, in a twisted way, of the “Rumble in the Jungle”, where Ali parried all, defended using the ropes, to eventually knock out Foreman, the ultimate attacker.

But the tide has turned in the last two years. After the thesis and the antithesis, it is time for a new concept: although Rafa is a vicious counter puncher, the new paradigm is pure aggression. As we have seen in the Rafole matches, or in Shanghai more recently, this aggression starts from the return. It is not any more Foreman vs Ali, it is more Calzaghe vs Atkins: the attacker doesn’t take risks, it is ready to launch one punch more, and he is also able to wait for an opening.

Rafa said it after the USO, last year: Novak was playing one more ball. But Rafa too is a specialist of the “one more ball”. I believed intermittently that you couldn’t win a point against him. But that ball wasn’t the same: it wasn’t the defensive, unexpected get that dazzled Rafa, it was Novak’s ability to attack once more, to displace the defender completely. But you can’t play that way forever. You have to finish the points, and when displaced, defenders always have one last weapon: the slice. Against the slice, you have to volley. It was clear in the semi of Indian Wells. For the first time I saw Federer playing that one ball more a whole match, and with his big forehand and excellent volleying, he didn’t allow rallies to be reset.

That was good one:) I liked and watched boxing in 70s and 80s but not since then.
I have to tell you “Thriller in Manila” is better than “Rumble in the jungle” much better, I still think Smokin’ Joe should win that one, it was “closest expirience to death” as Ali described it. I can watch it over and over again same as I cannot watch when Foreman destroyed Smokin’ Joe, it was sad to watch, really sad for me particulay because I liked the bloke, good decent battler not a big moth like Ali, but Ali was the best…. that doesn’t make me like him.

Finally, I liked them all, for their courage, their strength, their determination. I liked Hagler too. The one I didn’t like was Roy Jones jr, because he didn’t know absolutely nothing about boxing — he was just a freaking beast, so fast, but so fast. I watched him against Mike McCallum, who was a fine technician in the ring, and it was a good match. I was very glad when Calzaghe beat him, showing that speed does not always kill.

“I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.”

Which is exactly how it has been between 2008 – 2012, wherein pretty much all the top 4 trading titles and places, and with some shifting beginning in 2007. Prior to the the 2008-12 period, i.e., from 2004-07, it was mainly 2 guys dominating all of the masters and slams.

I think it’s likely to remain how it’s been in the last few years, with the top 4 and a number of dark horses winning the big titles for the next year or 2 anyhow.

While Rafa’s been out with his knees, it’s not the first time, and he’s only 26. He missed a good chunk in 2009, but he came back in 2010 and won 3 slams. He’ll be back and in good form, or at least that’d be my prediction. I also suspect Fed’ll be in the mix for another year or 2, just like Connors and Agassi played into their 30s.

In fact, as someone, I think trufan, pointed out recently, this is a very “mature” top ten. And at the FO this year, there were more 30 (and older) players in the draw than ever before. Players seem to be playing – and playing well – for a longer period now, perhaps due to technological shifts in equipment etc.?

You cannot “choose” what erea you play in. It does not make you necessarily better or worse. You still have to play, and win. One could say also Rafa played in a weak era. Outside of Fed, he dominated.this whole era This whole era thing is moot imo.

I have seen that documentary, back in run down gym in a slum in Philadelphia where he started from.
Do you know that he refused to fight for a title when Ali was in prison, out of respect for Ali, and he also wrote letter to President Nixon asking him to let Ali out of jail and yet Big Mouth Ali called him all those names as thank you.

Some have advanced a few criteria for a strong/weak era. It is perhaps better to judge by the players that played.

I liked Connors very much, Sampras, Safin, Mecir also, but I don’t think that the present level of professionalism existed then.

Jane mentioned the age of the players among the top ten. It becomes clear that you can’t be a member of the top ten having a single weakness, and with the quantity of excellent players from the 11th to the 40th rank, you have to mature and be consistent weak in week out to achieve good results.

So I have no doubts, whatsoever, that it is an exceptionally strong era since 2007, at least, and it was a strong era before.

You can’t just dismiss a certain period because an outstanding player rose above the others.

Who said anything about writing off Fed or Rafa?I merely pointed out that they will be less competitive than in previous years, which is why Djoker and Murray will win more. Anyone who’s objective can see what’s happening now.

Yes, Rafa by numerical age is only 26. But by tennis years, he’s much older, having been on the tour since he’s been 14, which is 12 years as a pro. He turned pro in 2001. Fed turned pro 1998. That’s why I claim that they’re about close in years, etc. Others should keep this in mind when they compare Nadal and Djokovic, especially with injuries because who knows the way djokovic plays similar to Rafa what will happen in the future?.

BTW, those 30+ players that are playing well are from Fed’s era, which just goes to show how much better Fed was above his peers. It’s nothing related to equipment, which has come about since we left wooden rackets and those strings behind.

Anyway, this seems to be turning towards another era argument, and I’m not up to that agagoing to go there again. Have fun all. I’m out.

The longevity of current top tenners is probably due to many issues, but even Sampras has commented on the changes since he played: strings, racquets, and even physio & training techniques have advanced, which, imo, could be a factor in the increasing longevity of the careers of players.

Rafa turned pro 3 years after Fed; Nole turned pro 2 years after Rafa, so Nole is very close to Rafa in that regard. But yes, Rafa has for sure 2 more years mileage, and he was winning right away at the FO. He’s had extended leaves for injury (you could probably count 1 year altogether?) so that will probably help to sustain him longer. Rafa & team have been smart in this regard; i.e., when he has needed the time to recovery, he’s taken it and it seems he hasn’t rushed typically.

skeezer, not sure I follow your 10:06 post to me, but I’ll try to break it down:

1. “(Rafa turned pro in 2001, Nole in 2003. )”

I wrote the same thing in my 9:37 post; my point was that Nole is actually very close to Rafa’s era, as they turned pro only 2 years apart, thus their mileage is not that drastically different. Indeed Fed turned pro 3 years before Rafa, whereas Nole turned pro only 2 years after Rafa. I made this distinction in response to Alok’s comment at 8:53, as follows:

“[Rafa] turned pro in 2001. Fed turned pro 1998. That’s why I claim that they’re about close in years, etc. Others should keep this in mind when they compare Nadal and Djokovic, especially with injuries because who knows the way djokovic plays similar to Rafa what will happen in the future?.”

——————————————————
2. “Additionally, in Feds supposed “weak era” period(04-07), both Nole and Rafa were professional tennis players from 04-07, no?”

Firstly, if you look through my posts on this thread, I didn’t say it was “a weak era” when Fedal were dominating in 04-07. Again, I was simply responding to Alok’s earlier 7:17 post where she said:

“If Fed and Rafa cannot beat Djokovic and Murray on a consistent basis, then it will only be two players at the top with very little competition to stop them. To me that’s somewhat of a weak era. I consider a strong era where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments.”

I said that her description of a strong era – “where all of them are beating each other in slams and MS tournaments” – basically corresponds with the years of 2008-present, more so than 2004-07. Indeed, I forecasted that it’ll probably continue that way going forward. I don’t see Fed or Rafa as being out of contention, and in fact pointed out that the top ten age-range is higher than normal now. Thus, I don’t think we’re headed into a “weak era”.

How come no one talking about Paris yet? Simon and Baghdatis must have breathed a sigh of relief- if they can get past each other, Hanescu is a slight downgrade from the original opponent.
This may be the most lopsided draw I’ve seen. There’s Murray and Berdych in one half, and everyone else in the other: Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer, Raonic, Isner and Nole.

With this talk of eras (this topic will probably get as old as the Rafa/Fed/GOAT argument, but for now its fresher), Ferrero’s retirement gives us a chance to rethink Fed’s generation. There was a brilliant time, I think 2003, when Ferrero was #1, but the year end championships would decide it between Ferrero, Agassi, Roddick and Federer.
This was a brilliant moment in tennis. Roddick was considered a superstar coming into his own, Agassi was the ageless wonder, and Ferrero and Federer were these talented pretenders to the throne. Right behind them, the vaguard of the New Balls Generation: Hewitt and Safin. Safin had only manhandled Sampras in the USO Finals when Sampras had just broken the record for Wimbledon championships. Then there was Guga, and Haas. Federer was not even one of the featured men in the NBG marketing campaign.
Now we know Fed ran roughshod over that Masters Final and that generation. But at the time, MAN, that seemed like a class cohort. Some terrible luck in terms of injuries hit many of those guys, but more importantly, Federer took tennis to a new level. Roddick was in HOW many grand slam finals? How many Slams would he have had he not run into Federer?
Then you have other early Fed rivals like Nalbandian and Davydenko who somehow always were threatening to Rafa (as Roddick was for a long time to Nole).

So, let’s say Djokovic is superior to Roddick. Murray has yet to have a career to match many of those other NBG stars, who left so much on the table. If you fill out the top ten now, beyond the big four, there’s not too much pedigree. So today you have one great star, in Djokovic, one potential star in Murray, and two fading superstars.
Can’t really say this is a better generation in terms of slam threats than Federer’s, though the level of Nole and Murray alone may be higher.

How bout if we all just agree that Sampras faced a historically weak era in the context of 70′s to present. I mean, Pioline? Henman? Rusedski? In no other era does Yevgeny Kafelnikov win two grand slams.

The people who claim that Federer played in a weak era are biased against Federer. That is the only explanation I can think of because during his time, he has played and beaten such prominent names as mentioned above by mike. Add to that, he has won majors and been ranked number one during the time when the likes of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are playing in their prime years. So mike, don’t get irritated at people who call it a weak period in tennis. Just be happy that you can think more clearly and more reasonably than those people. It’s not their fault. They were born that way.

volley, those people you mentioned were not really past their prime when Federer started beating them.

Sampras was 30 when he lost to Federer in 2001 but he continued to play well beating Agassi at the QF in the same year and then winning the US Open in 2002 beating Agassi again as well as Tommy Haas and Andy Roddick along the way. Sampras was not a lame old dog when Federer beat him in the only ATP match they ever played.

Kafelnikov retired at the age of 30 or 31. Federer has beaten him before he got to that age.

Krajicek, Ivanesevic and Chang were not even really that good to dignify any explanation as to why Federer can beat them at any age.

On the other hand, Federer at an age days shy of 31 won Wimbledon beating players like Djokovic who was the number one player in his prime years, and Murray, also in his prime and with the homecourt advantage.

In the process of looking up references for my post, I just realized something that made me very happy. That although Federer and Sampras share the record for the most Wimbledon titles, Federer has beaten him in their only match in Wimbledon and he did it when Sampras was the defending champion. Hurray to my man!

Roger has so many peak years which have encompassed (and still going on) the times of many excellent players. Roger made them all look ordinary. He dominated them so much which gave the illusion that they were not great players. Take away Roger and think how many slams Roddick would have won. Many others would also have added more to their majors collection. Even Sampras would have had 8 Wimbledon titles. But Roger happened and he is that good. Give him a strong tennis era and he will make it look weak.

no you didn’t really. Guga and Fed played only 3 times, and only once at a slam – RG 2004. Hewitt was stopped by RF 5 times at slams between 2004 (3 times) & 2005 (2 times). Hewitt faded after that and they didn’t meet at any slam in 2006 or 2007. Safin only met Fed twice in slams between 2003-06.

some people consider RF’s absolute peak years as 2005 -07. i’ll give you Hewitt and Roddick but not the others mentioned above.

Weak era argument:I read comments on this blog about this thousand times…I personally think that Feds era was slightly weaker then todays area (stronger then Sampras era ) but for one minute I ‘m not suggestin that somehow he is not greatest player ever-because in one of the strongest eras (right know and last 5 years ) he was number one and winning a slams.And also I want to ad that Roddick was great player but unlucky having a Fed around.If Fed was playing in this era from begining maybe he would have 2 slams less (just maybe,I said ) but he would still be better then other big tree.Right?So, as much I support Novak, I’ll take hat off to Fed and Nadal anytime because Novak is still long way from those too…

Courbon even though Rafa has significantly more slams than Nole,i still cant help been a little envious of Nole,as Nole has more of an even distribution of slams,i would gladly swap a couple of Rafas FOs for a couple of slams on HCs,when Nole wins the FO(which im sure he will before too long),he will be regarded as an all court player,where as Rafa is only regarded as a CC player ,due to most of his slams been at the FO,dont get me wrong im delighted Rafa has what he has,but because of the skewed and bias towards clay,i just feel sometimes his legacy doesnt always get the credit it deserves.

I think you are wrong there-Borg is well rememberd and has similair record to Nadal (ok, 5 Wimbledons but not US Open and AO )…I would anytime swap 11GS wins for 5GS wins.If you read what real tennis pros think about Nadal (and players, like Novak and Murray )its clear that he is considered like one of the greates tennis players.I think Anti Nadal loby on this blog got to your head.Well thats at least what I think…

How many years according to you? A clear definition of an era and the time period involved help to know where you are coming from. Are you saying that domination by one player within a year( winning streaks, multiple major wins like in 2010 and 2011 etc.) can not be due to weak competition or other factors but domination over a longer period must necessarily be only due to weak competition.

“a weak era is where only one player dominates.”

How much and what kind of a single-player domination is sufficient for you to come to that conclusion? Is it impossible for anyone to be better than the rest of the field for more than a year unless the competition is weak? What about weak competition based on surface domination e.g. Rafa on clay or the hard court domination by Novak in 2011 and 2012? Even if four players “dominate”, the rest of the field can still be very weak and, if one player dominates, the rest of the field can still be deep and competitive against each other. Ideally, in a strong period, every tournament should have a different winner and all players on the tour should have a points tally similar, if not identical, to each other. Since that ideal is not easy to achieve, periods of domination are not surprising as some players are better than others especially in their prime. There is no way of knowing how Roger would have performed now if he were in his physical prime. The fact that an old battle-weary player was able to regain the top rank in a supposedly strong period speaks volumes…..

Oh wait, since it was Roger who did it, it must be due to weak competition.

alison. Why do you say “Nole has more of an even distribution of slams”? He has 3 AO’s, 1 Wimbledon and 1 USO. Rafa has 7 FO’s, 2 Wimbledon, 1 AO and 1 USO. You are probably saying he is top heavy with FO’s but that’s OK with me. Remember he has got the Career Golden Slam which consists of all 4 slams plus the Olympic Gold Medal. How many players have achieved that feat? Only 3 players, Steffi Graf, Agassi and Rafa. #BeHappy

You have a point about the anti Nadal loby,unfortunatly sometimes you hear something that much you start believing its true,im glad he has what he has,where he goes from here to be honest i dont really know,my expectations only go as far as seeing him actually start playing again,Novak seems to be in his prime,and is only getting started,i have no idea as to how many slams he will go on to win,but hes in the form of his life so who knows?

I know what you mean but who knows?Nole may get injured and is finished.I would not look that far.You are right,lets just wait to see him play.I think this long break makes any nadal fan uncomfortable.I would also if Nole had similair situation.And Giles is right.Be happy!Ah, that British melancholy…

perhaps you don’t know the expression? to have suggested that Sampras, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Chang were serious rivals to Federer I assumed mike was being less than serious, thus ‘tongue in cheek’. imo that’s not really emotive.

>>How many years according to you?

More than one, several.

>>Ideally, in a strong period, every tournament should have a different winner

yes, ideally. but everyone knows the statistics for who has won the major share of slams and masters over the last 5 years, only a handful, and the same few opponents kept turning up in most of the finals. the incredible consistency overshadows the earlier era.

from 2003-2006 the top 4 changed each year. some top players were past their prime, some got injured and some had only just begun to make their mark. it doesn’t detract from Fed’s achievements, it was just the situation at that time.

There is nothing more to counter. You’re “volley” moniker has been defeated by a Rafa/Fed/Nole/Murray screamer passin shot.
Seriously, this subject has been discussed sometime ago, and the weak era argument has been officially labeled debunked. You have come on the scene a little late.

You never answered my question, what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too? What is the foundation based on with all tennis players and whom has a better “era” record? Keep in mind Fed has played in multiple era’s and has won slams in all of them.

skeezer, lol, debunked by whom? according to your bias, it’s settled. i can view it more objectively than a dedicated fan. the debate continues, even among so-called experts. it’s only a debate and a difference of opinion -no need to take it personally.

>>what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too?

i don’t understand you question. i wasn’t comparing it to anything. imo, there have been other weak eras such as 96-99.

Unfortunately TJ has a serious complex problem – he/she/it wants to be the only voice on this forum. Everybody else should just roll over and die and just listen to the cr@p dished out by him/her/it. Strangely enough I once owned a dog named TJ whose incessant barking was getting on my nerves so consequently had to get rid! #BarkingDogs

” it doesn’t detract from Fed’s achievements, it was just the situation at that time. ”

Had you said it at the outset, the arguments would have been less heated. A player can not chose his competition. Federer started in 1998 and struggled for some time. He had huge losing H2H against several players which he later turned around. His peak years were from 2004 to 2007 which is not surprising as he was in his mid-twenties and that is the age in which most players produce their best results. His decline was not surprising at all and it coincided with the rise of other players who were in their prime or started approaching their prime. I think Federer has done well to regain the number one rank twice after that dominant phase. As rogerafa notes, his recent achievements are indicative of how he would have done even in this period if he were in his physical prime. The strong or weak era argument becomes somewhat insignificant in this case.

“You never answered my question, what are u comparing Fed’s weak era too? What is the foundation based on with all tennis players and whom has a better “era” record? Keep in mind Fed has played in multiple era’s and has won slams in all of them.,